CriticalDance Forum

nice site
Page 2 of 3

Author:  Azlan [ Sun Mar 05, 2000 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

Oh, one more thing, Grace. As far as "activity" is concerned, I think we have come a long way since our recent inception but we have some ways to go. It is amazing though how many intelligent and knowledgeable dance fans have joined in our discussions. I am pleased with the quality of people we have drawn.

Author:  grace [ Mon Mar 06, 2000 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

hey azlan, good to hear from you!<P>some FASCINATING answers: frankly, i think your explanation about the choice of the word 'critical' is SO interesting (and so unexpected!) that you should write it up, sort of like this, and put it somewhere that EVERYONE new will SEE it, like on your welcome page or something....<P>VERY interesting stuff...<P>(but as i say, not at all predictable or obvious unless one is told).<P>i agree that your site DOES have a feeling of camaraderie. and that it's activity IS higher than others that have been going longer (for example, the section of that i keep tabs on: "Topics in Teachers" has had literally NO activity for weeks now, which is disappointing).<P>since we're on constructive criticism, in the interests of advancing this board, can i say that i think your "Behind the Scenes" (backstage/technical) section is fascinating and, i believe, unique. here is an area of strength, i feel, that you could capitalise on. <P>i want to suggest that to make it easier for us people-with-limited-time (i.e. all of us) to take advantage of this section, that it might be broken up somehow...HOW? is the big question!<P>maybe:<P>1. strictly TECHNICAL: lighting, floors, and MAYBE also costume, makeup, shoes, props, OR maybe they should be separate. <P>2. PEOPLE, e.g. off the current board that would be threads like 'A Busy Life!', 'Benesh Notation', 'Backstage parents', 'Who's all behind' etc.<BR> <BR>3. maybe DANCERS ISSUES, which would include threads like 'Eating', 'Feet, Glorious Feet', and 'Anxious Moments?'.<P>4. Stuart's 'Terminology' thread - which i have only just now noticed : thanks (a sarcastic thanks!) Stuart Image ! ) strikes me as somehow out of it's element, (but valuable). i don't know how to make a category for it....<P>not sure that this is the right way to go about splitting up the section, but AM fairly sure that it would be better to do so ! Image<P>hope you might agree?<P>i will watch to find out. Image<P>

Author:  trina [ Mon Mar 06, 2000 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

Grace-in reference to your delineation of the terms "modern" vs. "contemporary". Actually, having read several biographies of Martha Graham, Martha called her style of movement "contemporary". Hence, the name of her school in New York- The Martha Graham School of Contemporary Dance. I believe she sought to place herself in a league with the contemporary visual artists of her day, many of whom she collaborated with-Alexander Calder, Isamu Noguchi, etc. She saw herself as a trailblazer or maverick in the same vein as these artists. I'm not sure about the others-Humphrey, Weidman, etc. <BR>

Author:  Azlan [ Mon Mar 06, 2000 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

Grace, I like your suggestions. What does everyone else think? Split it up the way Grace suggests? Who wants to be Moderator? Image

Author:  Stuart Sweeney [ Mon Mar 06, 2000 11:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

grace : Stuart's 'Terminology' thread..... strikes me as somehow out of it's element. <P>Grace, are you suggesting that you know better than me, a Founder Member and Administrator for God's sake, where a thread belongs? Hmmm........actually you're right. Azlan could you work your magic and switch the Terminology thread to 'Issues', please.<P><p>[This message has been edited by Stuart Sweeney (edited 03-07-2000).]

Author:  Azlan [ Tue Mar 07, 2000 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

Stuart, you should be able to do this yourself but I'll do it this time.

Author:  Stuart Sweeney [ Wed Mar 08, 2000 2:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

It's great to have someone look at the site and come up with good new ideas. For those involved there is always the risk of missing the wood for the trees. <P>On the question of the name of the site. I do wonder whether the current name is as helpful as it might be; in addition to grace's points, potential problems:<P>- it does have a slight negative feel in line with the usage of the word 'critical' without a qualifier like 'constuctive'.<BR>- because it does not have 'dance' at the front, might people and search engine robots miss us? <P>The main problems with a change:<P>- the time and cost of making the switch and the risk of loss of existing readers who do not follow us to the new name.<BR>- what name to have. Some possibilities:<BR><BR>dance.divine<BR>dance.delight<BR>dance.times<BR><P>One thing is for sure if we are going to change the name it should be sooner rather than later.<P>Turning to 'Behind the Scenes'. One of the key problems with setting up a Bulletin Board is how to divide up the topics. I have to say that it seems to have worked pretty well here given the distribution of posting on the various Topics. It's good to hear that 'Behind the Scenes' offers something that differentiates us. However, it is the second smallest by number of Postings and if we split it the various sections would become very small indeed - each would be about 10% of the size of the ballet thread. <P>Grace, You mention the Teaching boards. I was actually a helper on that Board when the new format was discussed. I was keen that the Teaching section should be 1 topic, but in the event it was split into 3. I suspect that there are several reason that this part of the Board has not taken off, but one is the spread of Postings between the different Topics, which makes it seem even quieter than it is. Grace, do you think that the time problem that you mention relates to the initial review of the threads to date or to the on-going situation? If it is the former, then as a one-off perhaps it is acceptable. My initial view is to leave 'Behind the Scenes' as it is. <P><p>[This message has been edited by Stuart Sweeney (edited 03-08-2000).]

Author:  grace [ Wed Mar 08, 2000 4:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

TRINA: <BR>i hope you might have posted this message over in stuart's thread on this topic? (i would never have offered this information if he hadn't asked me directly, by the way.)<P>as to the information you offer: obviously graham's work WAS contemporary when she was doing it, but it is no longer contemporary (i.e. of our time). OK? <P> ----------------<P>gosh, STUART, i'm a bit confused by all this!<P>guess it's my OWN fault, eh?!!! Image<P>1. re THE NAME: i agree BOTH ways, by which i mean that i think another name MIGHT have been better, BUT now you have this one, its a pain to change, and may be better NOT to.<P>certainly if one wants to change, sooner is better than later - before your board hits the mass popularity stakes we might all be envisaging! but i will leave that consideration now to your capable brains (all of you).<P>2. i am surprised that Behind the Scenes has the second smallest number of postings - there seemed to be heaps, to me! but i believe you, if you say so.<P>i don't know enough about the balance between the volume/activity/keeping similar-stuff-together type of issues that you speak of. i was just responding purely as someone who USES the service; that's how it feels to me.<P>3. re the 'time problem': i don't understand your question, could you re-phrase it? thanks!<P> <p>[This message has been edited by grace (edited 03-08-2000).]

Author:  Stuart Sweeney [ Wed Mar 08, 2000 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

grace, re. the 'time problem', sorry this wasn't clear. I was referring to your comment about 'people with limited time'.

Author:  grace [ Wed Mar 08, 2000 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

yes stuart, but what ABOUT them?

Author:  Stuart Sweeney [ Sat Mar 11, 2000 1:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

Sorry it wasn't clear. I got the impresion that one of the reasons for splitting 'Behind the Scenes' was to make it more speedy for 'people with limited time' to find what they wanted. My point was that I can see there could be a problem when someone first visits the site and is going through a lot of previous postings, but that once that chore has been accomplished, then the current level of Postings to that Board, say 5-10 per week, should not cause a problem.

Author:  grace [ Sat Mar 11, 2000 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

OK stuart: NOW i getcha'.<P>hmm...well, yes and no.<P>i guess i think that the various topics brought up there are very GOOD ones, & unique to this board in some cases, & actually warrant a bit more action than they are getting - which they MIGHT be more likely to get if people who were interested in SPECIFICS (say, only interested in tech issues, or only interested in dancer-specific issues) could get straight to 'em?<P>actually i notice the board sort of doesn't assume DANCERS will be using it? -shock,horror!!!- (this is, i feel, inferred by the structure.) <P>for example, there is no section for classes, auditions, teachers...(which are the dancer's primary focus)<P>i re-viewed postings with your comments in mind, and i see what you mean that by splitting the classes, teachers, and something else into three, (have i got that right?) there is next-to-no action on any of them (it appears). so this would argue against my own suggestion...<P>i guess i get a sort of schizophrenic feeling when i look at the topics posted in Behind the Scenes, and i sort of don't know where to go first -even tho' i have had a look at most of them now - because i feel my attention pulled in too many directions. <P>whereas when a topic-type is well-defined, one's attention isn't too fractured, it just stays on the most-recent few postings...<P>maybe it's just ME? come on, speak up all you other interested parties! Image<P><BR>

Author:  grace [ Wed Mar 15, 2000 7:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

" come on, speak up all you other interested parties! Image " <P>i realise we're all busy being astounded about ross stretton, but surely we can do two things at once? Image<P>stuart, looking back at your name about expressdance or xpressdance, rather than the other way round? could be taken as expressing oneself about dance, or as dance as expression, or as the journalistic idea of a newspaper title like 'the express' (and FAST 'cause we're on the internet)...<P>what about dancemine, or miningdance -also with two meanings - of 'my own' and also of digging for information, or of mining a subject for depth, for insights, for all that one can learn or find out about it...<P>

Author:  Azlan [ Thu Mar 16, 2000 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

Well, we could add sections and topics for dancers. We originally felt however that this board would be best for the discussion of performances. But we are open to suggestions. I defer the creation of new sections to Stuart. What do you think, Stuart?

Author:  Stuart Sweeney [ Sat Mar 18, 2000 3:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: nice site

In terms of the name, I think my favourite to date is '' on the assumption that it may help searches etc to have 'dance' first. Comments from those who know about web visibilty would be very welcome. We do not do well on the Search engines, as far as I can tell from the UK. Have people come across criticaldance on the US search engines?<P>Re. the existing topics, criticaldance has the most balanced mix by number of Postings of the ballet and dance websites that I look at. But I think some improvements could be made:<P>The 'Theatre' sections to be renamed 'Ballet reviews, comments and news' and similar for 'Modern' and 'Other', to reflect what actually happens there.<P><B>'Backstage'</B> <P>- Some changes are possible, but we MUST have 1 or 2 dance teachers/producers to act as the Moderators and answer queries. <P>- 'Behind the Scenes' blurb to be changed to 'Discuss staging, dance technique and the other elements necessary to make dance happen.'<P>- I'm attracted to grace's idea about a section on 'Classes, teachers and auditions'. I think it should initially be one section, to be split if it takes off.<P><BR>What do others think?<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Stuart Sweeney (edited 03-18-2000).]

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group